Posted by PTravel on 02/14/07 20:01

"Gene" <genes@wildblue.net> wrote in message
news:y4IAh.17$AO3.28701@news.sisna.com...
> My gut feeling is that you are correct.
>
> However, I really would like to see the two
> DVDs I described burned & played side-by-side.
> There is nothing like getting a report from someone
> that actually owns said camcorder type.
>
> I have a real hard time seeing the difference in
> some of this stuff, when played back on a 1080i TV.
> I agree that there are differences in quality, but I
> (and the folks watching TV with me) have a real hard time
> seeing some of the quality differences in some
> audio & video DVD-Rs.
>
> It really boils down to how much you care ~ a percent or two
> in A/V quality, IMHO. That is, non-critical home video, vs.
> the masterpiece with which you are trying to impress your boss:-)

A couple of points:

1. Some HD TVs do a good job up-converting 640i (standard definition
video), and some do an absolutely atrocious job, while looking good with HD
material.

2. All transcodes (the process of converting non-mpeg2 source material to
mpeg2) are not created equal. DVD camcorders, entry-level editing packages
and dedicated software transcoders all produce DVD-compliant mpeg2.
However, the differences in resulting video quality will be dramatic. DVD
camcorders do single-pass, on-the-fly transcodes and result in the worst
quality. Entry-level editing packages (and even some mid-range to prosumer
packages) usually compromise on transcode quality and optimize for short
transcode time. These will produce better DVDs than a DVD camcorder, but
they're stll not the best. The highest video quality will be achieved by
using a stand-alone transcoder program that can do 2-pass, 10-bit, maximum
motion search transcodes. There are inexpensive solutions for this -- I use
tmpgenc -- but transcode time with this product is measured in tens of hours
(transcoding a 2-hour video can take up to 24 hours on my 3 GHz P4). More
expensive (much more expensive) software transcoders can achieve equal
quality in somewhat less time, though I'm not aware of any that can do a
quality real-time transcode, i.e. 2 hours to transcode a 2 hour video. The
differences in video quality between a DVD camcorder, an entry-level
all-in-one package and a properly-produced stand-alone transcode are obvious
on a good standard definition television. On an HD TV that has good
upscaling capability, the differences will be very dramatic.

3. I'm strictly a hobbyist. I produce video for myself, my wife and my
in-laws, along with the occassional Youtube upload (and I do have my own
non-commercial website on travel video just for fun). As you note, everyone
has their own standard for what is "good enough." I don't know your
standard, but I can tell you this: I wouldn't expect anything remotely
acceptable from the Sanyo. The focus of its design is a gimmick, i.e. a
small form factor and tapeless video. I see many, many posts in these ngs
from people asking, "why does my video look so bad?" The answer will vary
depending on how the video was produced, but often the answer is: "you used
a lousy camera with crappy glass that produces video at high-compression
rates and with low data bandwidth." No amount of post-processing can "fix"
video like that. As they say in the computer field, "garbage in, garbage
out." Because my videos are important to me, I strive for the best quality
I can (within reason). The DVDs that I can produce come pretty close to
commercial quality, but I use a prosumer camcorder, edit with prosumer
software (Premiere Pro), transcode for highest quality and author the DVD
with a high-end consumer/prosumer package (Encore). That may be more
trouble than it's worth for you, but my feeling is that the memories I
preserve this way will be something I want to see for the rest of my life.

With all that said, if you're still interested in the Sanyo, I'd suggest
trying it hands on in a store that will output the video to a decent monitor
(don't rely on the camera's lcd or viewfinder). Try it under a variety of
lighting conditions, particularly low-light. Do some quick pans to see how
it handles motion artifacts. If you're satisfied with what you see, you'll
probably be satisfied with a DVD produced from the video. Bear in mind
that, regardless of how impeccable your technique, the video quality on the
DVD will be degraded from what you see. The 1080i television issue is a red
herring. A good up-converting 1080i television will hand a DVD as well or
better than a standard def television. A poor-upconverting 1080i set will
not. Finally, remember that commercial DVDs of films are not good sources
to judge the 1080i upscaling ability for home video. Because of the
difference in film and video frame rates, televisions (both SD and HD) have
to do 3/2 pull-down -- showing some frames longer than other frames. This
is complicated by having to handle interlace issues (that's what the "i" in
1080i stands for). Because most people want to watch DVD movies on their HD
set, a lot of attention is paid to the 3/2 pull-down system, with less paid
to displaying 640i (standard definition) video material.



>
> Gene
>
>
>
>
>
> "PTravel" <ptravel@travelersvideo.com> wrote in message
> news:53gvi0F1spcjsU1@mid.individual.net...
>>
>> "Gene" <genes@wildblue.net> wrote in message
>> news:4FGAh.10$jP3.76876@news.sisna.com...
>>> If anyone has something similar to this:
>>> Sanyo VPC-HD1A
>>> http://www.steves-digicams.com/2006_reviews/hd1a.html
>>> are you happy with it?
>>>
>>> ~85 minutes on a 4GB card does not sound
>>> that bad. 16GB should be out there eventually.
>>>
>>> Wonder if the A/V quality of the 720p is comparable
>>> to my current MiniDV, when both are burned to a DVD-R
>>> at max quality? That is, if you make a 85 minute DVD-R
>>> of each at its best possible recording mode, which
>>> DVD-R of 85 minutes would be the better quality when
>>> played back on a 1080i TV?
>>>
>>> If I could get comparable DVD-Rs from this camcorder,
>>> the conversion from flash to DVD-R should be really
>>> easy on a PC with a flash reader. Kind of like the
>>> set-top conversions should be, but are not, at least
>>> for me. (Too many freezes with my Sony camcorders
>>> and firewire.)
>>>
>>> The lens on these little camcorders look a little iffy to me,
>>> just not sure how they could give the same quality
>>> as my old Sony PC100 with wide angle lens, etc?
>>
>> Standard definition DV-25 (what you get from your miniDV camcorder) has a
>> data rate of 25 mbps, using non-temporal compression at a rate of 5 to 1.
>> DVD-compliant mpeg (what is used on your DVRs) has a maximum data rate of
>> around 10 mbps, and uses temporal compression at a rate of 10 to 1 or
>> more. High definition HDV (what you get from the prosumer high def
>> camcorders) uses mpeg2 compression and also has a data rate of 25 mbps.
>> These cameras have minor, but ocassionaly noticeable, motion artifact
>> issues. AVCHD (what consumer HD camcorders use) uses mpeg4 and can, in
>> theory, have a data rate of 25 mbps, but as implemented is limited to
>> between 12 and 17 mbps. These cameras exhibit major motion artifact
>> issues.
>>
>> Thes Sanyo has a data rate of 9 mbps, roughly 2/3s to 1/2 of the consumer
>> HD data rate, and roughly 30% of the data rate of a prosumer HDV
>> camcorder.
>>
>> YMMV but, to me, it's a toy for people who don't know better. It
>> certainly isn't going to produce video comparable to an AVCHD machine
>> (and, to me, AVCHD quality is unacceptable), and won't approach a HDV
>> machine (which, to me, is acceptable, but just).
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *********** cut-n-paste************
>>> The HD1a can record over 21 minutes of 720p
>>> HD video on a 1GB SD card or over 42 minutes
>>> on a 2GB card and is compatible with the newer
>>> 4GB size cards for even longer recording.
>>> You can record in Standard Definition mode
>>> (640 x 480 pixels at 30fps progressive) for up
>>> to two hours on a 2GB SD card. It's easy to
>>> switch between high-definition and standard-
>>> definition recording modes by simply pressing
>>> the "HD/Norm" button on the side of the camera.
>>> *************************************
>>>
>>> Gene
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

[Back to original message]